The prospect of genetically modified babies is no longer science fiction, but the current rush from start-ups to deliver this technology may be premature and counterproductive. Every child, in a sense, is a genetic experiment due to the inherent randomness of natural reproduction. Our genomes are riddled with mutations, and the next generation is always a roll of the dice. Given enough time, gene editing will likely become routine, and natural conception may even be seen as irresponsible. However, we are far from that reality, despite recent headlines.
The Illusion of Imminent CRISPR Babies
In 2025, several companies announced plans to create gene-edited embryos. But the question remains: are these breakthroughs truly around the corner, or will such efforts backfire? The core premise behind some of these ventures—preventing genetic diseases—is already achievable through existing methods like IVF screening. This raises a critical point: why invest in a complex, legally fraught technology when a simpler, proven solution exists?
Companies like Manhattan Genomics argue that editing embryos can increase the chances of a healthy birth when couples have limited viable embryos for screening. However, even with recent advances, CRISPR carries significant risks. Dangerous mutations can occur, and the editing process often results in mosaicism : where different cells within an embryo carry different genetic changes. This makes it impossible to guarantee the correction of a disease-causing mutation without introducing unintended consequences.
The Case for Rigorous Research
To proceed responsibly, gene editing must prioritize safety and transparency. Cloning edited stem cells before implantation—as done in animal research—could offer a solution, but cloned animals frequently exhibit health problems. The real path forward requires more basic research and strict regulatory oversight.
The UK and Australia provide a model: mitochondrial donation, where defective mitochondria are replaced with healthy ones, was introduced after public consultation, legal reform, and trial-based approvals. Early private attempts at this technique in the US in the 1990s were banned due to ethical concerns. This demonstrates that new reproductive technologies should be rolled out openly, legally, and under independent supervision.
The Hidden Agenda?
At least two start-ups are reportedly considering experiments in countries with lax regulations. This approach won’t advance science; it will erode trust and likely trigger stricter laws elsewhere. Billionaires backing these ventures—like Sam Altman and Brian Armstrong—would have a greater impact by funding non-profit research.
The question remains: is the true goal to prevent disease, or to create genetically enhanced children? One start-up, Bootstrap Bio, openly pursues the latter. The future of gene editing depends on whether we prioritize responsible progress or reckless ambition.
Ultimately, the successful introduction of gene editing into human reproduction will require patience, transparency, and a commitment to ethical oversight. The current race to market risks undermining public trust and delaying true scientific advancement.
